"Voter ID memo stirs tension"
...
UPDATE: Today's Washington Post features a follow up
article, Justice
Plays Down Memo Critical of Ga. Voter ID Plan. A snippet:
Justice spokesman Eric Holland said in a statement that the 51-page
memo "was an early draft that did not include data and analysis from
other voting section career attorneys who recognized the absence of a
retrogressive effect." He said the document contained "analytical
flaws" and "factual errors."
"The early draft . . . does not represent the quality of factual
and legal analysis that the Justice Department expects in a final
product," Holland said.
I cannot find Holland's statement on the DOJ website. It is interesting
to call an Aug. 25 draft an "early draft" when DOJ announced the
decision on August 26. It would also be nice to know more about
questions regarding the "quality of factual and legal analysis" in the
draft. I have always considered the work of the career attorneys in
DOJ's voting rights division to be quite good, and I want to know what
is lacking here. Ed Still also points out
that it is interesting to consider the Aug. 25 draft in light of this
October 7, 2005 DOJ letter defending the decision to preclear the
Georgia i.d. rule.
--
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org